OK, the government thing I can actually understand given the context. In the 1700's, standard issue military stuff wasn't that different from what you could buy at the local trading store. Today though its a little harder to swing.

Also, in the situation you described, one must assume that the military has been subverted away from democracy and been swayed over to the controlof a single individual or entity. Do you think that is possible in western democracy? With the rule of law and the courts, with public media, with the role of the international community in things like trade and finance?

5/06/2006 1:26pm,

Southpaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by elipson

And the seond part of my question, is this still relevant today? Do you really feel that your 9mm is gonna stop the government from exploiting you? I'm all for checks and balances, but we already have many many of those in plaes, maybe the most important being a free(ish) media and democratic institutions.

I think the right to self-defense is still relevant today...be it from my government, a foreign power, or fellow Americans.

Do I think my guns will stop my government from exploiting me? Not really, but I'd like to think that our government has developed beyond that possibility...though it continues to find ways to surprise me.

I think in America today my right to bear arms will most likely be used against a fellow American. Hopefully I'll never have to use it.

But...I'd rather be prepared just in case.

5/06/2006 1:32pm,

JonK

Quote:

Originally Posted by elipson

Also, in the situation you described, one must assume that the military has been subverted away from democracy and been swayed over to the controlof a single individual or entity. Do you think that is possible in western democracy? With the rule of law and the courts, with public media, with the role of the international community in things like trade and finance?

In the US now? Probably not. In a modern democracy with a less deeply ingrained tradition of civilian control of the military? Absolutely; see South America generally. In the 18th Century? There was a pretty strong movement on at one point to coronate George Washington. If Washington had been a more self-aggrandizing or power-hungry person, the history of this country could very well have turned out much differently than it did.

5/06/2006 1:39pm,

JohnnyCache

Quote:

Originally Posted by elipson

OK, the government thing I can actually understand given the context. In the 1700's, standard issue military stuff wasn't that different from what you could buy at the local trading store. Today though its a little harder to swing.

Also, in the situation you described, one must assume that the military has been subverted away from democracy and been swayed over to the controlof a single individual or entity. Do you think that is possible in western democracy? With the rule of law and the courts, with public media, with the role of the international community in things like trade and finance?

You're on a bad branch here

See, the more armed the populace, the harder it is to turn the army on it.

The more likely the army is to break ranks and not take a unified stance against the people

The less likely the government is to oppress...

And no, the government is not to be a check on its own power.

As for the difference in equipment, anyone who can own a gun can equip themselves with the rifle and sidearm of an ordinary infantryman...the tools of the infantryman are the most basic in warfare, and with them you can take other pieces. 250 milliion armed people are a potential thread to 2 million better armed people.

Weakening the right to bear arms increases the potential for government oppression.

5/06/2006 2:55pm,

Shawarma

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubhGhaill

The right to bear arms is a derivative of the right to self defense. If you have a right to self defense, you shouldn't be limited to using only ineffectual methods.

Untrue. "Right to shoot guys who want to rob you" is not guaranteed by the constitution. Right to bear arms to revolt and remove an unfair and dictatorial government is. Being able to use your Instrument of Democracy for self defense is an added bonus.

The thing that I find worrying about the 2nd amendmend is, that if the government should truly become tyrannical, they'd be damn sure they'd used enough propaganda to make the armed people turn their guns at the dissidents, making the Glorious Militia of Freedom little more than unpaid thugs for the ruling powers.

In my opinion, the founding fathers vastly underestimated the power of propaganda and overestimated the intelligence of The People. A gun for every man doesn't guarantee freedom in any way when the people are sheep.

5/06/2006 7:52pm,

elipson

Quote:

See, the more armed the populace, the harder it is to turn the army on it.

The more likely the army is to break ranks and not take a unified stance against the people

I think you might be on the bad branch. You concluding that the military has not turn on the populace because they have guns. Is that the only reason they haven't turned on us? Don't you think there are a lot of other factors playing into that, other than the arming of the populace?

There are many countries in Africa that have armed populations, and yet do not play out the same way that industrialized countries have. Don't you think its got to do with more things than just guns?

5/06/2006 8:01pm,

Don Gwinn

Quote:

Whether the Second Amendment is of equal importance now as it was then, I leave to the hippies and the gun nuts to fight out :)

Oh! Ooh! Ooh! I call gun nut!

When it comes to infantry weapons, we can buy weapons that are the equal of anything issued to an individual soldier with the exception, in some states, of grenades and squad automatic weapons. In many states you can have those, too, if you really want them.

Rifles and sidearms. . . . you can buy better stuff than soldiers are issued at your corner gun shop, depending on what you think is better. The only real difference between an issued M4 and the M4gery a member built for less than $800 in another thread is that his has a better trigger, better barrel and lacks a 3-shot burst. The only reason the 3-shot burst was developed was because full auto turned out not to be, if you'll forgive the cliche, a magic bullet.

Quote:

In my opinion, the founding fathers vastly underestimated the power of propaganda and overestimated the intelligence of The People. A gun for every man doesn't guarantee freedom in any way when the people are sheep.

Of course not. The Founders didn't expect to guarantee anything except a fighting chance. That's about all you can ask.
If the people are going to turn on each other and become the tools of oppressors, there isn't anything you can put into a Constitution that would prevent it.

None of that means the people shouldn't have a right to keep and bear arms; it just means we shouldn't expect miracles.

The Constitution was an attempt to compromise between people who wanted almost no central government at all and those who wanted central government, central banking, and all the rest. We ended up with a pretty good compromise, really. You must remember that our first attempt was the Articles of Confederation, which created a very loose confederacy of independent states more closely fitted to the term "state" than the states today. Today's states are more like very large, very independent counties than sovereign states.
The Articles of Confederation were widely considered a dismal failure, which forced the anti-Federalists to deal with the Federalists in order to keep their ideas in play.

5/07/2006 9:50am,

Planktime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Gwinn

Oh! Ooh! Ooh! I call gun nut!

Damnit I wanted to call gun nut!

Back to the point......

The second amendment as it is today is different then what the US founding fathers intended. Their idea was to keep the populace armed so that if necessary they (the populace) could do what was needed to ensure for future generations life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. So that being said if you read the amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In this list what is occuring?

Well there are no well regulated militia in the sense that this passage of text. (national guard dosn't count since they do not own their equipment and they are a branch of the US armed forces.)

So it comes down to the second section

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

We in the US interprate this as meening that we as citizens of our nation have the right to own fire arms and that this amendment guarentees it. As a whole it could mean that if you want to bear arms you have to form a Militia or in some way insure the security of a free state. Many of us gun nut more or less perfrom the second funciton as a deterant to invaision\tyranny.

Now that we have the formalities out of the way here is the reality of this situation. Gun control has some place in a society.

WARNING STRAWMEN BELOW!

For example say your country is in the middle of a huge depression along with the rest of the world. You have armed gangs associated with political parties killing each other occasionally. So you as a new leader come to power. This man takes possetion of all the nations firearms claiming that this will solve the crime problem. Viola crime dropps dramatically as you industrialize your nation negotialte to remove several of your national debts and regain teritory that you feel was taken from your nation wrongly.

Here is the dark side of what I just described to you. This is the events that were the death of the Weimar republic you might know the nation as Gemany around 29-36. This is a radical case, and cannot be used in every situation. In fact this argument is as strawman as the come. However there is a chance that the people of Germany could have solved their own governments problem had they still had the means to fight. It is like a college professor I had once said, "to solve the problem of cime by making the government a criminal is no solution." This is the purpose of the second amendment. It is as valid today as it was when it was created.

A second exanple from modern times is the use of fire arms in the defense of ones country from an outside invadeing army. There are lots of these, the most central in our mind now is the insurgancey in Iraq. These folks for depending on who's side you are on are either freedom fighters or terrorists. Depending on how things shape up it may come down to a matter of dates to determine which is which.

5/07/2006 11:35am,

Mr. Mantis

If the Second Amendment wasn't the "Right to bear arms" in Bill of Rights to the constitution, guns would be illegal today. These days, you have people daydreaming about what constitutes a "fundamental right" which has more constitutional protection. 2nd amendment hasn't been named a fundamental right amendment. Fucking liberals... They're all fundamental!!

Don't you think the founders thought it was important? WTF man!?! It's number 2 on the list!

The right means, you have a right to not be in a position where your liberty can be easily oppressed. The Constitution was written by a bunch of dudes that just overthrew their government. If the government they set up became bitches, they wanted us to have the ability to dress them down and kick some ass.

5/07/2006 1:25pm,

Planktime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Mantis

If the Second Amendment wasn't the "Right to bear arms" in Bill of Rights to the constitution, guns would be illegal today. These days, you have people daydreaming about what constitutes a "fundamental right" which has more constitutional protection. 2nd amendment hasn't been named a fundamental right amendment. Fucking liberals... They're all fundamental!!

Don't you think the founders thought it was important? WTF man!?! It's number 2 on the list!

The right means, you have a right to not be in a position where your liberty can be easily oppressed. The Constitution was written by a bunch of dudes that just overthrew their government. If the government they set up became bitches, they wanted us to have the ability to dress them down and kick some ass.

Are you refering to me? I agree with you whole heartedly. I feel that the first 10 on the bill of rights should be under the Fundmentals of our union. however since our fore father decided to use language which is subjective then we get **** like Chicago gun laws, and all other states hiding behind the 10th.....